Abstract
Drawing on insights from qualitative social science research, this paper aims to prompt reflection on social, ethical and regulatory challenges faced by scientists undertaking invasive animal research in the field and propose ways of addressing these challenges to promote good care for animals and environments. In particular, we explore challenges relating to the management of (i) relationships with publics and stakeholders, who may be present at field sites or crucial to research success; (ii) ethical considerations not present in the laboratory, such as the impacts of research on populations and ecosystems; (iii) working under an array of regulations, which may operate in accordance with competing ethical principles or objectives; and (iv) relationships with regulators (especially vets), which may involve disagreements over ethics and expertise, especially because regulators may be more accustomed to overseeing research in the laboratory than the field. We argue that flexibility—at a personal and policy level—and respect for others' expertise emerged as two key ways of negotiating ethical challenges, fostering positive working relationships and promoting good care for individual animals and broader ecosystems. While our analysis focuses on the UK, we propose that many of these lessons are broadly applicable to international contexts.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Measuring physiology in free-living animals (Part II)’.
Highlights
Laboratory–field borders have long interested scholars in the humanities and social sciences
We focus on four key challenges faced by researchers working in the field, which relate to the management of (i) relationships with publics and stakeholders, who may be present at field sites or crucial to research success; (ii) ethical considerations not present in the laboratory, such as the impacts of research on populations and ecosystems; (iii) working under an array of regulations, which may operate in accordance with competing ethical principles or objectives; and (iv) relationships with regulators, which may involve disagreements over ethics and expertise, especially because regulators are likely to be more accustomed to overseeing research in the laboratory than the field
Invasive research with freeranging animals involves a range of different social, ethical and regulatory challenges compared with laboratory research
Summary
Laboratory–field borders have long interested scholars in the humanities and social sciences. We show that laboratory–field comparisons are valuable for gaining insight into other key themes in social studies of science and conservation, namely: transparency and openness in animal research [9,10]; affective relationships between researchers and wildlife study subjects [11,12]; conflicts between conservation and animal welfare goals [12,13,14,15,16,17]; negotiating expertise between professional scientists and other knowledge-holders [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]; and the relationship between animal welfare law and good care in practice [25,26,27,28] We explore these ethical, social and regulatory elements of field-based animal research through the lens of work covered by the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986). While we draw on qualitative research with animal research communities in the UK, we propose that many of these lessons are broadly applicable to international contexts
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
